JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15th December,1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 17/96 whereby accused appellant has been convicted for offence under section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default to payment to further undergo one years imprisonment. 2. The prosecution version as unfolded from the evidence on the file is that Mitha Lal, accused appellant, married Smt. Sunder about 20 years prior to occurrence. About 8 months prior to occurrence. Mitha Lal was in employment at Ahmedabad and his wife Sunder along with 13 years old daughter Kanchan remained at their parental house in village Hamirwas. About 20-25 days prior to occurrence, Mitha Lal came from Ahmedabad and took his wife to his village Mokhamsingh-ka-guda where he came to know that Mst Sunder was having five months pregnancy but without disclosing any anguish to Sunder, at 10AM on 02.3.1996, he came to Hamirwas along with Sunder. At that time, his father-in-law Moola Ram was not at the house and daughter Kanchan has gone for grazing goats in the fields. Both of them called on PW4 Ghisa Ram, who was old and ailing and was also elder brother of Moola Ram, Thereafter,both of them want to house of Moola Ram and prepared the meal. In the meantime, Moola Ram, who want to take ration sugar, also arrived at the house. After taking the meal, suddenly accused appellant wielded an axe lying nearby and inflicted 3 blows repeatedly on head and vital parts of Sunder, killing her instantaneously. Moola Ram raised alarm, attracting PW4 Ghisa Ram and neighbours. In the meanwhile, accused appellant threw the axe at the cite and made good his escape. 3. PW6 Jalam Singh informed SHO, Siriyari at 3:30 PM orally about at the occurrence which was entered in the daily diary, copy of which is Ex.P. 23, above information was cryptic and therefore PW10 Shanti Lal, SHO, along with staff, immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence where Ex. P.24 `Parcha bayan of Moola Ram was recorded at 4:15 PM and same was sent to the Police Station through Uttam Singh, Constable, to register FIR Ex. P. 25 Exhibit P5 site map, Exs. P.24 `Parcha bayan of Moola Ram was recorded at 4:15 PM and same was sent to the Police Station through Uttam Singh, Constable, to register FIR Ex. P. 25 Exhibit P5 site map, Exs. P 6 and P7-Panchnama of the dead body were prepared at the site, the blood lying on the site was seized and sealed vide Ex. P 8 The blood-stained clothes of deceased Sunder were also seized and sealed vide Ex. P. 28. 4. Accused appellant was apprehended on the same day at 9:30 PM vide Ex. R 29. The clothes and shoes worn by him were also seized and sealed vide Ex. P30 and also sent for chemical examination, with seals intact, through Jethu Chand, Constable vide receipt Ex. P.4 . But without awaiting report of the chemical examination accused was challanned and charged for offence under sec.302, IPC, upon his pleading not guilty and claiming trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. In statements under sec.313, Cr.P.C. accused pleaded ignorance with regard to incriminating evidence put to him and stated that he has been residing at Ahmedabad. No evidence in defence was produced. Learned trial court, thereafter, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as stated above, relying upon ocular testimony of PW4 Ghisa Ram,PW13 Kanchan and PW14 Mst Gujri,corroborated by testimony of PW12 Dr. Arun Kumar Nema. 5. Mr. Sambhoo Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took us through the evidence and submitted that there was no direct evidence implicating accused appellant in the crime. Moola Ram, at whose 'Parcha Bayan' FIR Ex. P.25 was registered, had dies and could not be examined in the trial court, PW4 Ghisa Ram was old and ailing and was not the eye-witness of the occurrence as per Police statement but has made significant improvements in the trial court while trying to become eye-witness of the occurrence. Similar is the case with PW13 Kanchan, who was grazing goats in the fields and was out of village at the time of occurrence yet has tried to become eye-witness in the trial court, according to learned counsel, conviction has been based upon surmises and conjectures and the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, learned PP. supported the impugned judgment and conviction. 6. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. On the contrary, learned PP. supported the impugned judgment and conviction. 6. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. Though the star witness of the occurrence was Moola Ram, who was father of deceased and father-in-law of accused appellant and in whose house the crime was committed, who, also give Parcha bayan Ex. P24 immediately after the occurrence, in which prosecution story has been unfolded. However,he passed away before being examined by the trial court, therefore, his 'Parcha bayan Ex. P.24 could not be made use of. 7. PW13 Kanchan, according to police Statement Ex.D4 was not present at the house when occurrence took place and was grazing she-goats in the fields. When she came back to the house, she saw her mother lying in a pool of blood and came to know that her father has given fatal axe blows to her mother. She made significant improvements before trial court and tried to become eye-witness of the occurrence. She has been confronted with portions A to B, C to D and E to F of her police statement Ex.D4, which she denied to have made to the police. The trial court has wrongly relied upon this witness, as eye-witness of the occurrence. However immediately after the occurrence, when she came to house, she saw her mother lying in pool of blood and it was revealed to her that her father gave fatal axe blows to her mother. To that extent her testimony can be believed on the res gesta principle, as enshrined in sec.5 of the Evidence Act. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 22 , Apex Court held that version given by a person by the scene of occurrence, immediately after the occurrence, is admissible as relevant fact. 8. PW14 Gujri is residing in the neighbourhood. She was examined by the police on the day of occurrence itself and in the court also, she has not resided from her police statement Ex.D5 According to this witness, on the day of occurrence, she saw deceased Sunder along with her husband Mitha Lal, accused appellant,coming together in the village Hamirwas. At that time, Sunder was carrying vegetables in a Potli and both of them went in side house of Moola Ram where they prepared their meal. At that time, Sunder was carrying vegetables in a Potli and both of them went in side house of Moola Ram where they prepared their meal. She has again stated that after some time, she heard cries "mar diya" and simultaneously saw accused Mitha lal scaling the "baar" (outer wall of house) and running away. Sunder was lying seriously injured. This witness has not been cross examined much and only contradiction pointed out to her in the police Statement Ex.D5 was at place A to B, in which it is mentioned that after the occurrence, she did not go to house of Moola Ram. Excluding that portion.it can be safely said that she has seen accused appellant along with deceased immediately prior to occurrence and immediately after the occurrence. To at extent , her testimony is unassailable and implicit reliance can be placed upon it. 9. PW4 Ghisa Lal is elder brother of Moola Ram and residing in the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence. There is only a partition wall between the two houses. On the day of occurrence also, he was old and ailing,lying on a cot. He has stated that on the day of occurrence, accused along with Sunder came in Hamirwas and called on him, asked his well being and thereafter went in the house of Moola Ram,Ghisa Ram again stated that at that time Moola Ram was not in the house. He has gone to bring ration sugar. After Moola Ram came, both husband and wife, prepared their meal and took it. Some time thereafter, the occurrence took place. Though Ghisa Ram tried to become on eye-witness in the trial court and though same was relied upon by the court below yet, according to us, he was not an eye-witness of the occurrence. Being old, infirm and ailing, he was not capable of coming to scene of occurrence. From his house, it was not possible to peep into the place of occurrence, there being intervening wall. However, he can very well hear the occurrence taking place in the adjoining house. Testimony of PW4 Ghisa Ram to the extent that he has seen accused appellant along with deceased Sunder immediately prior to occurrence and he has also heard cries & commotion at the place of occurrence and accused appellant fleeing away from place of occurrence can be believed. Testimony of PW4 Ghisa Ram to the extent that he has seen accused appellant along with deceased Sunder immediately prior to occurrence and he has also heard cries & commotion at the place of occurrence and accused appellant fleeing away from place of occurrence can be believed. To that extent, implicit reliance on the testimony of PW4 Ghisa Ram can be placed. 10. The Apex Court in catena of Judgments has held that if circumstances last seen with the deceased is proved beyond reasonable doubt and has not been explained by the accuse otherwise, then this circumstance alone may be sufficient to form the chain leading to irresistible conclusion that killer was none else than accused himself, in this connection, State of UP v. Seikh Mazhar, JT 2001 (4) SC 391 can be referred to. In the above matter, the accused and deceased both were seen going towards 'dargah' immediately prior to occurrence and thereafter accused alone was seen coming back from 'dargah. When he was asked about the child, no answer was given by him. In such circumstances, it was held that killer of the girl was accused and none else. 11. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1708 , the appellant and deceased were last been together, having gone to village in the cart of Jaspal and having returned therefrom,when the deceased was handed over to Tej Kanwar by Jaspal Singh in an injured condition. The above circumstances indicated, in the absence of any explanation, that if Bhupender (Wife) received injuries, going to village and returning along with Jaspal. It must be caused by appellant and none other. 12. In Smt. Basanti v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1572 , the circumstances proved were that there were none else in the house except Smt. Basanti at the time of occurrence when she was alone and could have access to the bed room. If there were no other circumstances, it can be said that one could not exclude possibility of murder of deceased being committed by co-accused Asu. 13. In Bhupender v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 1011 , the circumstances so proved were that deceased and the accused shared common food on the fateful night and there was none else in the house on that night except deceased and the accused. 13. In Bhupender v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 1011 , the circumstances so proved were that deceased and the accused shared common food on the fateful night and there was none else in the house on that night except deceased and the accused. The accused had an opportunity to accomplish his desire, therefore accused must have committed the crime. 14. Without multiplying the authorities ,in the matter at hand, it can be safely said that it was accused appellant and none else who committed the crime. 15. In the matter at hand, accused has given a false explanation in his statements under sec.313, Cr.P.C. that he was at Ahmedabad. However he had been apprehended on the day of occurrence itself, not away from of occurrence, vide arrest memo Ex. P. 29. Therefore, this false explanation itself supplies the missing link in the chain of circumstances. In 1999(9) SCC 242 , Swapan Tara v. State of West Bengal , the accused appellant, who was husband of deceased, stated to Doctor that his wife taken poison whereas she was found to have died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation and not by poison. The above false defence plea, according to Apex Court, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, was sufficient to convict the accused. Similarly, in Jala Shaeb Seikh v. State of Goa, 1999(6) SCC 410 , the false defence plea on facts provided the missing link to chain of circumstances. If the accused appellant was innocent,he should not have fled away from the place of occurrence and may have of given a plausible explanation of his absence from the site. 16. It is well established rule of criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be made the basis of conviction if it is of such a character that same is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. The incriminating circumstances must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence,the whole endeavour and effort of the court should be to find out whether the crime was committed by the accused and the circumstances proved form themselves into a complete chain,unerringly pointing out guilt of the accused. 17. In a case of circumstantial evidence,the whole endeavour and effort of the court should be to find out whether the crime was committed by the accused and the circumstances proved form themselves into a complete chain,unerringly pointing out guilt of the accused. 17. In the matter at hand, the following chain of circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that deceased Sunder was wife of accused appellant (2) that immediately prepared the meal and both of them came to house of Moola Ram in village Hamir was. (3) that deceased before the occurrence, both husband and wife took it. (4) that immediately after the occurrence , accused was seen running away from the place of occurrence. (5) that accused appellant was arrested on the day of occurrence itself, not far away from the place of occurrence. (6) that at the time and place of occurrence except deceased and accused only Moola Ram, father of deceased, was present,who Lodged FIR Ex. P24 (Parcha bayan) immediately after the occurrence but could not be examined in the trial court due to his death. (7) that it is also proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of PW12 Dr. Arun Kumar Nema, who conducted autopsy on the dead body and found four ante-mortem sharp injuries on her person,which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (8) that there was motive to commit the crime. The accused was at Ahmedabad for 8 months and when he came back, found his wife having 5-6 months pregnancy. Therefore, the accused suspected fidelity of his wife and suddenly caused fatal sharp blows on her head and neck, causing death instantaneously. The above circumstances form themselves into a complete chain, unerringly pointing out guilt of the accused, excluding every possibility of innocence of the accused. The trial court has rightly found him guilty. 18. No other plea was raised before us by either party.The re-assessment and reappraisal of the evidence made by us above, leads to solitary conclusion that it was accused appellant who committed the ghastly murder of his wife.Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. Accused appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of his sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******